tv [untitled] March 2, 2012 5:30pm-6:00pm PST
unless i could see further evidence on how she intends to market this, why would uphold the department. >> i guess what concerns me is this is a nightmarish story, and we have people, the nightmare was not created about fisherman's wharf. i would not accused dpw of having created a nightmare. this is a new ordinance, but it seems as though no one would suggest this. the appellant thought she fully describe the product she was going to sell. i think it is problematical. i do not think what she is selling is edible food. it seems as though she may require a permit from the
police, so that is one problem. another problem is i see no similarity between the coffee and tea being sold there and that being sold in burger king. it is not their principal business. i do not see why that would be any competition. i was little surprise over the uproar of this particular business. this is a unique product. i just assumed i knew the answer. it seems unfair that someone could come in with a much lower cost and compete with those businesses, but we cannot have this kind of food operation within 1,500 feet of a school.
it seems there are certain areas of the city where this should be prohibited, and this would be one of them. they could only par for an hour, and the department would require them to be there. it is not thought out, and the amount of expense is a pilot has had to go through to find out a lot of things that should have been found out long before now, it is heartbreaking, but the other problem is, even though the product being sold is not what is being sold at burger king, aside from the fact it is not consumable on-site is darren's cafe.
there is a letter from fisherman's wharf now benefit committee. i think it is undisputed it is within 300 feet, and that this is what the department is able to review, and it sounds as if darren's is very similar. i intend to uphold out of sympathy for what the department has gone through. i would pray the department allow her to sit down with this appellant and figure out some other spot where they can operate so that some of the cost some that have been incurred can be recovered by operating a successful business.
>> i would vote to uphold the department. i think it is a tough decision. i value the mobile food facilities. i think the city has made an effort, but we have to balance it with the neighbors' concerns, and that is why this process was established, and i think we have heard a lot from the letters of well as the testimony here, it is a congested area. there are 100 restaurants in the vicinity that sell like food, so i would agree and uphold the permit.
>> i agree it is a difficult decision to make. i think based on the fact is a unique product, i do not find is like food. i would vote to grant the permit. >> rather than making a motion that might fail, i am going to make a motion to uphold the permit. but is it based on the decision? >> it seems as though there is something wrong with the business plan, but it seems like we can leave that out. let's just go with like foods within 300 feet. do we need to cite that?
>> it is the hearing officer's decision? >> the finding is the same as the product and the meeting of the public works code. >> on that motion? >> i strongly object. [calling votes] >> i would object. >> the vote is 3-2, and that motion passes, so we will move on to the next case, which is 12-003, appealing the denial on
december 22 of the global food officer -- the mobile food facility permit. we will give the appellant seven minutes when she is ready. >> i am here to let you know i am a grower of african coffee beans and tea from africa, and our coffee is for a coffee cart. it did not have anyone to appeal that brought forth an
appeal, so i went through everything, paid for everything, and it was in nine days on like food -- it was denied based on like food, and i strongly disagree because nobody sells african coffee or tea in the area. the coffee is available to be used in the cart, so they can experience it right then and there. they also have the chance to take it home. if they want to take some home. most of our customers try the coffee first, and that is why we have both. our emphasis was based on what we were told and represented by the dpw as to what we could provide, and i find it very interesting that a coffee at
burger king or a cafe or a pizza parlor can be considered the same kind of coffee that you would pay $140 a pound for, and not only that, i believe the fact that it is an african coffee, distinguished by its ethnicity, and i am ethnic, so it is from my background, that it can be compared with coffee that is provided by boudin that have to coffees, but both have artificial ingredients in them. my heart is in the specifics of the permanent requirement, and
it was designed for that as well, and this is another situation where after i had gone through the process, after they notify me there were no protests, and when i was ready to get my permit, and it was decided they were going to the night it, so at this point i do not have -- going to deny it, so at this point i do not have faith in the system. what was denied was like food, and what is determined here is whether i can sell coffee beans. that is different from what i was preparing to come here with. n.yat no point in the ordinance
does it prohibit me from doing theat, so i am surprised, but there it is. thank you. but it was a little bit different from the information, but you are free to arm for a continuance if you would like time to prepare for this based upon some of the comments you heard. >> the problem i'm having is that dpw has brought forth issues that are not even in the order to deny a. that is what we are talking about. now we are talking about whether i have of our right to exist.
that is not something i am willing to tackle at all tonight. i am responding to the denial. when they say there are hundreds of restaurants, that is not within my group, because i did not have hundreds of restaurants, and there are no neighbors in this area, so the noise and all this they are talking about is irrelevant because they are businesses, and it is a business area, so i am not disturbing anybody sleep common on -- anybody sleep, so i do not know what this is about any more. is it about me having beans, and it is like burger king? i do not understand that. i am here to put forth the fact
that i have a unique product that is consumed on the spot, and it is available to take home. no one in this area has it or provide it, and i feel you can go either way on the subject in terms of beans or tea bags or whatever, but i do not think he will find a better african coffee in the area if you try to find it, and is distinguished. you can very much to distinguish it. it is organic. it is healthy. you use less. what you find available in my area you have to use three or four times the amount by sir. -- the amount i served. we have, we can request we serve
a particular coffee while we are there, and it is within the requirements that were given to me on the website in terms of some where the card is located and how many feet i can be on its. i have a letter from the police department saying it is within the recommended area that my heart is going to be, and in terms of traffic, i was there in the middle of the weekend at the height of traffic, and there is nothing on the street, because across there are two empty buildings. could there are no other businesses. there is just one long area you are walking to until you get past the halfway point of law,
-- of the block, so i do not understand anymore. we feel it has been a process a does not work. you cannot discriminate against me because everybody sells coffee. everybody sells coffee, so the fact i serve coffee, too, is not supposed to be taken into consideration according to the ordinance of health, and this is what is happening, and nobody is looking into the fact that it says you cannot use coffee if they are selling pastries, because that is not their core business, but they have coffee,
♪ >> do you sell coffee beans? no packaged coffee? >> nothing. >> thank you. >> what is the name of that establishment? >> that was the bakery. >> that was darren's? >> that was the water from bakery. we did the water from a bakery. >> which is the one that is nearby? cruxes that the same place you want to station in the car to?
-- >> is that the same place you want to station the cart? but this is the peak of the reagan -- >> this is the pizza. >> the use of coffee beans we did do you sell coffee beans? -- do you sell coffee beans? >> no. >> it goes on and on. >> what i was trying to do was open the eyes of people about the different origins of coffee, open their mind to the fact that call3 originated in africa -- that coffee originated in africa, that there are distinguishing characteristics, and the crop starbucks has got everybody hooked on promotes
acidity and some health problems for people, so what my coffee provides is an alternative to them not drinking coffee at all, and i mention that in my brief, and it affects a lot of businesses, not just me. >> thank you. >> good evening. for this location is different. there was a recommendation for denial from the police department, and we followed their recommendation specifically.
to clarify some things, the notice of intent form states and what is to be sold is to be african coffee, tea, and suites. -- sweets. under the code is also very specific facility is defined as a cart in conjunction with the commissary or other permited food facilities where it is distributed at retail. it does not include a transporter used to transport packaged foods to a facility or other food sources to consume for purposes of a mobile food caterer.
in this specific case, it must be a commissary, food for consumption. again, had we known that it was their business plan based upon that discussion, it is the wrong permanent tie. it doesn't match what is defined. in this specific case, it is a little different. the department, based upon the late-night request for the applicant for an evaluation. we were not able to get a response from the police department and we wound the receiving correspondence to the permit officer with a recommendation for denial of the sperm that.
the station capt. does not want her, specifically, the food court to have extended hours. therefore, they directed us to deny the permit. they changed her time based on disinformation. we correspond with the police department once again. and we were informed by the permit officer that the capt. does not want the facility there at all, specifically. based upon this recommendation, we deny this permit. we corresponded with the applicant specifically. this is a decision for the
police department, we will comply with this. this is what the appellant in this case what request. again, these are processes that the department can follow. we tried working with the applicant to determine if it is available because a search for a secondary location to provide for it is unfortunate -- appeal the decision of the nile for the department. i will answer any questions you may have.
this correspondence was between my staffhat time, the individual processing does permit were no longer allowed to work for the tenacity and county of san francisco. the process up to that point, we had to follow it up in november. we finally got it in november of 2011. there were also issues during that time for the other permanent that we discussed earlier. this was all during that time when occupy sf was in the area. they were trying to clean the area and handle a more compelling situation. there were certain delays and built in to the sperm that.
for that, i will apologize. >> my question was going to be, until you showed us the communique, and there were nothing's -- there was nothing in a brief periof. that memo on the overhead, i didn't see it in the brief. i'm talking about the police one. it was more of a statement, i didn't see it. the department did not receive a brief from the appellant and chile did not know what the discussion would be. >> i read it while you were doing it. i am just saying that to me, it was a very telling them all.
-- memo. president garcia: what is the difference between bakery, waterfront, and darren's? what is the difference in the way they operate, between the waterfront bakery and darren's? in otherwords, you approved this, the police will find out of their rationale, because the police wouldn't away and on if something is like food or not. it must have something to do of fully with like a safety. to disapprove the first one because of some like food nearby, it seems to me that a bakery that sold suites, that is
why you will then died of a permit. >> we were not even able to reach the position of generating a next step which was the public hearing. already the police department had responded negatively to this request from the applicant. >> and they are party to these determinations? >> and the police department is required to respond when the hours of operation extend beyond. president garcia: once the business plan was changed and they were no longer going to operate -- >> based upon the initial
objection, we went back to verify. would it still be appropriate and what the department have any issues? they continued to have issues even after the reduction of hours. >> are you saying that the department did not undertake its own investigation as to whether this is properly permitted or properly falling within the provinces of the permit? did the department to its own investigation after receiving the recommendation from the police? >> the initial comment from the permitting office based upon the information that we received was that the captain of the station